JoeL

I took a tour of this building today. It's certainly unique for the area, but my overall impression was negative. Pros: Tall ceilings, big windows, huge bathrooms. Cons: Insultingly cheap finishes. The kitchen cabinets were all IKEA. The bathroom cabinets and even the window blinds were also IKEA. I'm not sure, but I think the flooring and bathroom fixtures might have been as well. There's nothing wrong with IKEA, but at $300-$400 per square foot, that's a big mistake. In general, the price point was way way too high. $680,000-$750,000 for a large ~2000, 2br/2bath is completely absurd, even at Hyde Park square. You literally have bigger, nicer houses for about half the price just down the block.

Indeed. There's a strong chance that the streetcar could be voted down. Again, it doesn't help that the proposal is more expensive than it needs to be. People are legitimately sick of the government's overspending. It's a damn shame that one of the few useful ideas is going to bear the brunt of this backlash.

^ Mt Adams is almost the perfect situation for an aerial tram. The downside to trams is that they're quite slow, so they only make sense for short hillside transit. Trams can also be very cheap by mass transit standards - however, this is one instance where we'd need to avoid the example of Portland. They managed to waste tens of millions of extra dollars on their tram for no particular reason. However, I can't really imagine a scenario where a tram easily connects to the streetcar. Few people are seriously discussing a streetcar alignment anywhere near the base of Mt. Adams, and trams are not practical to extend into the CBD for speed and infrastructure reasons.

Here's a great take on this issue by a CNN ireporter. It's a must watch. Her speaking style is corny, but her analysis of the issues is spot-on. http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-303137

I know there is humor intended behind your post (and any inevitable responses by others) but a consolidated government would be great for Cincy. Consolidated governments aren't perfect. There are definitely some issues where a consolidated county government could inadvertently cause more flight into Bulter and Warren. However, on the whole, a merger would be fantastic for Cincinnati and Hamilton county.

As this movement gains momentum, I hope they produce a detailed fiscal analysis of how much it would cost to secede. Never mind whether they can get the votes, or whether the City and County will allow it. I just mean, how much it will cost them to take over bond payments on their roads, their school system, their police and fire buildings, etc. I think people will be shocked once someone actually bothers to run the numbers. Middle-class suburban residential districts are huge money losers. Westwood residents probably don't appreciate how much of their neighborhood's infrastructure is paid for by the taxes on commercial properties from downtown. Let's not ignore the elephant in the room either. As Section 8 people are getting cleared out of OTR and the West End, many of them moved further West. I'm sure that people in Westwood think that once they secede, they will be able to enact zoning laws that prevent more of "those people" from moving into their neighborhood. Maybe they could. Who knows? But unless Westwood can grow its own successful commercial district, I don't think they'll be able to afford to find out.

Well anyway, the one thing we obviously agree on is that SOMEONE IS LYING. Either the police are lying or Gates (through his lawyer) are lying. Whoever is lying is the one truly at fault and whoever is telling the truth is innocent. So who is lying? 1) Officer Crowley http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/07/23/officer_at_eye_of_storm_says_he_wont_apologize/?page=1 "But people who know Crowley were skeptical or outright dismissive of allegations of racism. A prominent defense lawyer, a neighbor of Crowley’s, his union, and fellow officers described him yesterday as a respected, and respectful, officer who performs his job well and has led his colleagues in diversity training." "it was not the first time he had a memorable encounter in the line of duty with a prominent black man. Nearly 16 years ago, as a Brandeis University police officer, Crowley desperately tried to save the life of Reggie Lewis after the Boston Celtics star collapsed while practicing in the school gym." "Crowley’s police union issued a statement saying it had reviewed the arrest of Gates and expressed “full and unqualified support’’ for his actions. “Sergeant Crowley is a highly respected veteran supervisor with a distinguished record in the Cambridge Police Department,’’ said the Cambridge Police Superior Officers Association. “His actions at the scene of this matter were consistent with his training, with the informed policies and practices of the Department, and with applicable legal standards.’’ 2) Prof. Henry Gates. One of the nations foremost scholars on race and racism, who has made a career out of discussing the history of racism against blacks. And who already plans to make a documentary about the incident "Shagory said he was upset by the criticism leveled against the officer and questioned Gates’s statement that the confrontation had inspired the Harvard professor to consider making a documentary about racial profiling. “I think the idea of him already planning a documentary is very premature, and a very unnecessary thing to say before all the facts are even in,’’ Shagory said." So yeah ... who's lying .... gee .. I wonder ...

Because the DA is a political office separate from the police and Cambridge is a community of left-wing academics. Did you read the background of the arresting officer? EVERYONE loves him and describes him as a nice level-headed guy who never oversteps his authority. Even the criminal defense attorneys love him.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0723092gates2.html I asked if you read the police report. If you actually have access to speak with Henry Gates, you should ask him to address the contradictions between the police report and his lawyer's statements. SOMEONE is lying. If the police report is correct, there is no possible way to justify Gate's actions. At absolute worst, it means his neighbor was racist, but the police still did everything exactly as they should have. Meanwhile Gates' pitched an immature fit and broke the law by refusing to comply with the basic requests of a police officer ... I guess because of anger or ego ... but either way, NOTHING justifies the actions described in that police report. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0723092gates2.html The only logical way to support Gates is if you believe that police report is lying. Because it sure makes Gates look like an entitled rich college professor who just thinks he's too damn important to have to take orders from a lowly police officer.

Also, I'm sure I'm coming late into this discussion, but the poll is flawed. It lists Latino as "Hispanic, non-black, non-white" which is an amazingly ignorant and incorrect statement. Latinos can be White, Black, Amerindian, or any possible mix thereof. People are most familiar with mestizos (some mix of Caucasian and Amerindian) because that's the predominant population of Mexico and Central America. However, I know Latinos who are 100% white, 100% black, 100% indian, and virtually everything in between.

Have you not read the actual police report? It paints an extremely negative picture of Mr Gates' actions. If the reporting officer is telling the truth, Gates' arrest was totally justified. It's a damn shame he pulled the race card and got out of trouble. According to the report: - He did NOT provide identification to the officers despite repeated requests - He screamed at the officers and refused to calm down - He threatened that the officers "didn't know who they were messing with" - He refused to listen to the officers trying to explain that they were called out by a concerned neighbor Also, his friend helped him break the door open with his shoulder. They were both wearing backpacks. It must have looked extremely suspicious, and they shouldn't have been so obtuse as to not think that a neighbor might have legitimately called the police.

Sorry, I guess I'm not really good at explaining it without repeating the phrase "zero sum game" a hundred times ;) Let me put it this way - there are literally thousands of young professionals who thought about living in Hp/Ok/Mtl but (for whatever reason: price, availability, etc.) ended up living in Kenwood or Covington or wherever. So there is plenty of demand to fill up the units for people who might leave for the core. At worst, it would be the lesser neighborhoods that would eventually feel negative effects from a shifting population. Or perhaps the exurban neighborhoods would suffer if gas prices rise again, and their depopulation would further buoy the city.

HeHateMe - With all due respect, you are incorrectly viewing this as a zero-sum-game, when it is not. When looking at the entire metro - yes, then there will probably be neighborhoods that lose. Like I said before, it will almost certainly be the Westside. If the Section 8 folks clear out of OTR and move to Price Hill and Westwood, the remaining money in these neighborhoods (and it's still there) will eventually relocate elsewhere within the metro. Sure, some might move to the suburbs, but others will relocate within the city. Also, don't underestimate the difficulty that the major corporations have in recruiting young people to come to Cincinnati. A gentrified OTR would make Cincy infinitely more attractive to young professionals, which then has a huge spillover effect in how these corporations allocate their office workers. (i.e. a gentrified OTR means more office space will be built in the CBD because the whole area has suddenly become more attractive.)

Good stuff. Colorado in general has a lot of quality New Urbanism. (And in this case, it's nice to see it mixed in with some of the old regular small-town urbanism.)

Yes, absolutely. The pie will get larger for those neighborhoods. Revitalization isn't a zero-sum-game. Like thomasbw said, there are plenty of suburbanites who also considered moving to Hyde Park/Oakley/Mt Lookout. It's an extremely desirable area, and anyone who leaves will be quickly replaced. Indeed, since the neighborhood is so heavily populated with corporate transplants, you can see this phenomenon every year. There's quite a bit of turnover in places like Hyde Park. But the new P&Gers replace the old ones ;) Furthermore, a gentrified OTR would be a totally new market segment for Cincinnati. The only neighborhood that compares might be Mt Adams - and it's easy to see how much the demand outstrips the supply for those units. Young professionals live all over the suburbs, and I think many of them would be attracted to a revitalized OTR. If anything, the neighborhoods that suffer from OTR's success would probably be on the Westside. That's where the negative elements from OTR will move, so places like Price Hill and Westwood will decline even further. But I really can't see any risk to the Eastside. It's not like Cincy's neighborhoods are all competing for a finite resource of 350,000 people. There are over 2 million people in the metro area, and plenty of them are willing to live in a nice urban neighborhood if it becomes gentrified. (Although yeah, it will trend towards people without children).

Very true. However, that doesn't mean that the streetcar - as proposed right now - isn't too expensive. I get the unfortunate feeling that for some on this forum, the mantra "no matter the cost, it's not too expensive" applies to their opinions of all publicly funded projects. I just hope that this obstinacy doesn't play into the hands of people like COAST, who are having unfortunate success attacking an otherwise great idea that has gone way overboard on cost.

That's typical for the New York Times. They are notorious for shoddy fact-checking and mistakes in their articles. Anytime they have an article about something I'm very familiar with (whether a city, college, artist, sport, etc) I always notice at least one very basic factual mistake. Anyway, it's an otherwise nice mention. However, I'm surprised that they didn't place more emphasis on Mt. Adams, Eden Park, and the Art Museum, since that's such an obvious highlight for the city. They mentioned the playhouse, but that's it.

Yet if people were serious about reducing the lane-mile cost of the streetcar - not only could we build it despite COAST's objections - but we could build more miles with the same money. Not to sound like a broken record here, but other cities have built at $15 million per lane-mile. Other cities are proposing lines at around $15 million per lane mile. Other cities have gone bidirectional. Other cities have chosen historic rolling stock at 10% the cost of modern stock. I refuse to believe that the current $25 million per mile "loop" is somehow the only option with the "urban" seal of approval here. Again, it's great if the city somehow pulls off this system. But it sure sounds like this is headed for yet another Cincinnati project that gets delayed or killed entirely. Perhaps it's because both sides have a penchant for taking the "all-or-nothing" approach? Look in the mirror guys. There's nothing wrong with a cheaper system, if that's what it takes to get a starter line running.

Daily ridership average is going to have everything to do with the route and the city, not the rolling stock. If you want to say that historic cars get lower ridership, that's fine - but you'll be using apples-to-oranges statistics because many of the historic lines (like Tampa or Ft. Collins) are aimed at tourists and not commuters. But I think it's patently false to suggest that a streetcar system all of a sudden wouldn't be worthwhile just because it had cheaper used cars, instead of shiny modern ones. Amidst all their lies, one of COAST's arguments is that streetcar supporters don't have much interest in accountability for how much money we want to spend. They paint us as people who just view government money as "free" without making any sacrifices for cost savings. Let's not make COAST accidentally correct.

But with a cheaper plan, their opposition is irrelevant, since funding is mostly lined-up. Does the fact that we could build a streetcar line from The Banks to the edge of UC for around $50-$60 million dollars not even remotely interest anyone here?

Tampa did it. Jacksonville has preliminary plans to do it. You'd just have to get rid of an on-street parking lane and put in a couple inches of concrete median. Certainly, getting rid of a couple hundred on-street parking spaces downtown or in OTR would be worth a cheap, effective streetcar? Bi-directional merging into double tracks in Tampa. Notice the tiny, unobtrusive barrier protecting the streetcar RoW from traffic. No barrier needed through an intersection. Again, I understand this is not an ideal scenario. More tracks over more blocks is better. Modern streetcars are better than historic ones. But we have to keep in mind that COAST could succeed in killing the entire thing. Whereas if reasonable cuts are made, the streetcar could be built with the money we have now, and there's nothing the anti-transit people can do to stop it. I guess it's a matter of priorities. Do you want an ideal system that may or may not happen, and may or may not get started for years? Or do you want a true starter system that goes to the same basic places - although slightly slower, rougher, and lower capacity - that can be built with today's available money ....

^ By the same logic, we'd also have enough money to build the streetcar right now, if only Streetcar supporters (like myself) were able to make a few compromises. For example, inferior "historic" streetcar rolling stock can be $80,000 per car, instead of $800,000 per car. Additionally, parts of the route could be built as a single-track, bi-directional route with short passing lanes. Other cities have built such systems for as low as $15 million per lane-mile, whereas the Cincinnati plan is really $50 million per "loop" mile. Such cheaper alternatives have been dismissed because - quite frankly - they aren't quite as nice. However, with COAST knocking at the door and threatening to kill the entire projects - I think streetcar supporters need to seriously consider these cheaper alternatives. Groundbreaking could be tomorrow if only people had been more open to compromise. After all, if Cincinnati builds a partially single-tracked line with historic rolling stock, it would still be a success. And there would be nothing preventing the addition of modern streetcars or a parallel track "loop" at a later date.

Speaking of which, I was a witness to their ballot fraud this weekend. A COAST petitioner told me two distinct lies while attempting to get me to sign his petition. Is there anyone I can call about this? Their signature tactics are obviously illegal, but I have no idea to whom to report it.

COAST will be at the Hyde Park blast with the anti-transit petition. If anyone were interested in catching COAST mislead people with their petition - this would probably be a good time. Bring your video cameras ;)

^ I also agree C-dawg. Triple the population of yuppies and hipsters (if anything, it might need to be 4x or 5x) and the rest will take care of itself. And just so I'm clear - I also absolutely agree that the focus on residents needs to come first. Far too many failed revitalizations begin with the mistake that you will create a vibrant retail/entertainment destination from scratch. In most cases, the residental population growth must come above all else.